The central problem with Diana Eck’s Darsan is that she falls into the same trap with regard to Hinduism that Kierkegaard’s nemeses fell into with Christianity: she doesn’t realize that offering a defense for something implies that it needs defense.
Hinduism is logically appealing in many ways. It has fatalism, but without the spiritlessness of mechanism. It has divine retribution, but without divine requirements for morality.
Of course, it also has nearly a billion adherents who live in destitution.
Eck breezes over this obstacle by insisting that she is describing Hinduism as a religious system, not as a political or social system. It’s hard to imagine anyone allowing such an analysis of Christianity or Islam (“Let’s talk about Christianity as if no Christians have done anything unlikeable when they came into temporal power. Let’s talk about Christendom as though it weren’t inhabited by real people.” Short discussion.). Eck gets away with it, of course, because she is describing something that, because of its inability to spread past the subcontinent, is considered a minority religion.
She adequately outlines the basic principles and practices of Hinduism, adequately differentiating it from similar worldviews without trying to ascribe doctrines to it. However, if you’re willing to risk being convinced that Hinduism is right, try Nectar in a Sieve or Siddhartha (yeah, I know. Buddhism, not Hinduism, but still a better book.).
